DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 and 07/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Regan et al. (2006/0193038).
Regarding claim 1, Regan disclose a manufacture formed using a mold and plural cores, the manufacture comprising: a monolithic (Figure 4 depicts: a unitary main housing structure; therefore considered to be monolithic under BRI) housing (in at least abstract discloses: spotting scope with a housing) having ends ([0025] discloses: 18, end, 22, end) and a length (Figure 2 depicts: a length between 18, end and 22, end), the length defining a plurality of non-coaxial channels (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 4 of Regan) including: an objective channel (see annotated Figure A below) for an objective lens assembly ([0025] discloses: 16, objective lens); and an additional channel (see annotated Figure A below) for an additional lens assembly ([0025] discloses: 20, eyepiece assembly); the monolithic housing further including: a first core opening (see annotated Figure A below) at an end of the ends (see annotated Figure A below), wherein the first core opening is configured to receive the objective lens assembly (see annotated Figure A below); and a second core opening (see annotated Figure A below) at another end of the ends (see annotated Figure A below), wherein the second core opening is configured to receive the additional lens assembly (see annotated Figure A below).
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, a manufacture formed using a mold and plural cores, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
1159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 2, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1, the monolithic housing further comprising a first reflector opening (see annotated Figure B below) to locate a first reflector ([0039] discloses: 114, prism) and a second reflector opening (see annotated Figure B below) to locate a second reflector ([0039] discloses: 124, prims) to re-direct reflected light from the first reflector through the additional lens assembly ([0039] discloses: 114 and 124 are porro prisms).
PNG
media_image2.png
529
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Regarding claim 7, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1, wherein an exterior part of the length of the monolithic housing defines one or more openings having one or more adapters mounted thereto, respectively ([0030] discloses: 58, lanyard mount); wherein each adapter includes: an exterior to mate with a corresponding one of the one or more openings (Examiner notes that the lanyard is considered the exterior to mate with the corresponding one or more openings); and a threaded hole for mounting an optic accessory to the manufacture ([0031] discloses: 66, threaded mounting hole), the threaded hole to mate with a threaded length of a fastener of the optic accessory ([0031] discloses: 66, threaded mounting hole, used to secure scope to a tripod; Examiner notes that the tripod is considered to have a threaded length to mate with the threading hole).
Regarding claim 12, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1, wherein a sidewall of at least one of the channels has a tapering thickness, in which the thickness increases moving away from a corresponding one of the core openings (Figure 4 depicts: tapered channel for the objective end, corresponding to the objective end core opening).
Regarding claim 13, Regan disclose a folded optic comprising the manufacture of claim 1 ([0006] discloses: folded optical path; therefore considered a folded optic).
Regarding claim 14, Regan discloses a folded optic, comprising: a housing (in at least abstract discloses: spotting scope with a housing) having ends ([0025] discloses: 18, end, 22, end) and a length (Figure 2 depicts: a length between 18, end and 22, end), wherein the housing includes: an objective channel section defining an objective channel (see annotated Figure A above); and an additional channel section integrally formed with the objective channel section (see annotated Figure A above; Figure 4 depicts the channels integrally formed with one another), the additional channel section defining an additional channel that is non-coaxial with the objective channel (see annotated Figure A above); an objective lens assembly mounted to the objective channel section ([0025] discloses: 16, objective lens); and an additional lens assembly mounted to the additional channel section ([0025] discloses: 20, eyepiece assembly).
Regarding claim 18, Regan discloses the folded optic of claim 14, wherein an exterior of the one of the channel sections includes one or more openings having one or more adapters mounted thereto, respectively ([0030] discloses: 58, lanyard mount); wherein each adapter includes: an exterior to mate with a corresponding one of the one or more openings (Examiner notes that the lanyard is considered the exterior to mate with the corresponding one or more openings); and a threaded hole for mounting an optic accessory to the manufacture ([0031] discloses: 66, threaded mounting hole), the threaded hole to mate with a threaded length of a fastener of the optic accessory ([0031] discloses: 66, threaded mounting hole, used to secure scope to a tripod; Examiner notes that the tripod is considered to have a threaded length to mate with the threading hole).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Reese et al. (US 2022/0170718).
Regarding claim 3, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic metal housing. Regan and Reese are related because both disclose optical sights.
Reese teaches a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic metal housing ([0007] teaches: housing may be monolithic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Reese and provide a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic metal housing. Doing so would allow for improved structural rigidity and durability of the housing, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lamontagne (US 2019/0011609).
Regarding claim 4, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic plastic or other non-metal housing. Regan and Lamontagne are related because both disclose optical elements.
Lamontagne teaches a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic plastic or other non-metal housing (claim 4 teaches: monolithic element is made of plastic material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Lamontagne and provide a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing comprises a monolithic plastic or other non-metal housing. Doing so would allow for reduced weight and manufacturing cost of the monolithic housing, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, in view of Tiller et al. (US 2023/0392902).
Regarding claim 5, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein exterior bottom side of the length of the monolithic housing defines a mounting rail interface. Regan and Tiller are related because both disclose optical sights.
Tiller teaches a manufacture wherein exterior bottom side of the length of the monolithic housing defines a mounting rail interface ([0030] teaches: accessory mounting rail).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Tiller and provide a manufacture wherein exterior bottom side of the length of the monolithic housing defines a mounting rail interface. Doing so would allow for improved structural rigidity and durability of the manufacture, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 17, Regan discloses the folded optic of claim 14.
Regan fails to disclose an optic wherein an exterior of the additional channel section defines a mounting rail interface or other bi-directional mounting interface. Regan and Tiller are related because both disclose optical sights.
Tiller teaches an optic wherein an exterior of the additional channel section defines a mounting rail interface or other bi-directional mounting interface ([0030] teaches: accessory mounting rail; Examiner notes that this mounting rail is considered to be on the exterior of component and analogous to the exterior of the mounting channel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Tiller and provide an optic wherein an exterior of the additional channel section defines a mounting rail interface or other bi-directional mounting interface. Doing so would allow for improved structural rigidity and durability of the manufacture, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038) in view of Tiller et al. (US 2023/0392902), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Contessa (US 2024/0077281).
Regarding claim 6, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 5.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein the mounting rail interface comprise a dovetail rail. Regan and Contessa are related because both disclose mounting rails.
Contessa teaches a manufacture wherein the mounting rail interface comprise a dovetail rail ([0064] teaches: dovetail rail mounting device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Contessa and provide a manufacture wherein the mounting rail interface comprise a dovetail rail. Doing so would allow for improved structural rigidity and durability of the manufacture, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Ratchford (US 4,695,105).
Regarding claim 8, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 7.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein at least one of the one or more adapters is ring-shaped, and wherein a center axis of the threaded hole is co-axial with a corresponding opening of the one or more openings. Regan and Ratchford are related because both disclose lanyard mounts.
Ratchford teaches a manufacture wherein at least one of the one or more adapters is ring-shaped (Col. 2, lines 61-62 teach: a cylindrical lanyard ring).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Ratchford and provide a manufacture wherein at least one of the one or more adapters is ring-shaped. Doing so would allow for transmission of external releasing forces to the connector assembly when mated, thereby improving the overall durability and quality of the optical system.
The modified Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein a center axis of the threaded hole is co-axial with a corresponding opening of the one or more openings. However, choosing a placement of adapters and openings is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to choosing a placement of adapters and openings since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing a manufacture wherein a center axis of the threaded hole is co-axial with a corresponding opening of the one or more openings. described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple types of placements center axis holes and openings, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a center axis of the threaded hole is co-axial with a corresponding opening of the one or more openings. represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Sharrah et al. (US 2010/0176741).
Regarding claim 9, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 7.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing is formed from a first material, and wherein the one or more adapters receive one or more threaded lengths of one or more fasteners, the one or more fasteners formed from a second material that is different than the first material. Regan and Sharrah are related because both disclose optical sights.
Saharrah teaches a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing is formed from a first material, and wherein the one or more adapters receive one or more threaded lengths of one or more fasteners, the one or more fasteners formed from a second material that is different than the first material ([0059] teaches: nylon housing, with metal inserts; therefore considered a first and second material, respectively, that are different).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of Saharrah and provide a manufacture wherein the monolithic housing is formed from a first material, and wherein the one or more adapters receive one or more threaded lengths of one or more fasteners, the one or more fasteners formed from a second material that is different than the first material. Doing so would allow for increased resistance of the various holes to stripping by the screws that are threaded therein.
Regarding claim 10, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 9, wherein the second material has a hardness that is greater than the first material (Sharrah: 0059 teaches: first material nylon/plastic, second material metal/steel, for resistance to stripping and ware; Examiner notes that steel is considered to have a hardness greater than plastic; the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above.
Regarding claim 11, Regan disclose the manufacture of claim 1.
Regan fails to disclose a manufacture wherein a distance between center axes of the first and second openings is not greater than one half of a sum of a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening. However, once you have multiple openings in housing, limited housing volume and desire for compactness, choosing the distance between openings is an obvious design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose a manufacture wherein a distance between center axes of the first and second openings is not greater than one half of a sum of a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the manufacture described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of distances between the openings, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a manufacture wherein a distance between center axes of the first and second openings is not greater than one half of a sum of a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, Regan discloses the folded optic of claim 14, wherein the assemblies are mounted to openings of the channels (Figure 4 and annotated Figure A above depict: assemblies mounted at opening of channels, one for the see 210, ocular lens and 16, objected lens that are mounted in openings ).
Regan fails to disclose an optic wherein a distance from center axes of the openings is less than one half of a sum of widths of the openings. However, once you have multiple openings in housing, limited housing volume and desire for compactness, choosing the distance between openings is an obvious design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose a manufacture wherein a distance between center axes of the first and second openings is not greater than one half of a sum of a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the manufacture described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of distances between the openings, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a manufacture wherein a distance between center axes of the first and second openings is not greater than one half of a sum of a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of O’Connor et al. (US 2021/0080546).
Regarding claim 15, Regan discloses the folded optic of claim 14.
Regan fails to disclose an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the additional channel section. Regan and O’Connor are related because both disclose optical systems.
O’Connor teaches an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the additional channel section ([0033] teaches: asymmetrical baffle in a lens barrel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of O’Connor and provide an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the additional channel section. Doing so would allow for improved suppression of stray and reflected light within the folded optical path, thereby improving image contrast and optical performance.
Regarding claim 16, Regan discloses the folded optic of claim 14.
Regan fails to disclose an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the objective channel section. Regan and O’Connor are related because both disclose optical systems.
O’Connor teaches an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the objective channel section ([0033] teaches: asymmetrical baffle in a lens barrel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Regan to incorporate the teachings of O’Connor and provide an optic further comprising an asymmetrical baffle located in the objective channel section. Doing so would allow for improved suppression of stray and reflected light within the folded optical path, thereby improving image contrast and optical performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Regan et al. (US 2006/0193038), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of McCreight, JR (US 2016/0048001) hereinafter McCreight.
Regarding claim 19, Regan teaches the folded optic of claim 14.
Regan fails to disclose an optic wherein the housing comprises a die-cast metal housing or an injection molded plastic housing. Regan and McCreight are related because both disclose optical sights.
McCreight teaches an optic wherein the housing comprises a die-cast metal housing or an injection molded plastic housing ([0041] teaches: housing is metal; Examiner notes that the claim is a product claim, therefore no patentable weight has been given to the process limitations recited in the instant claim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lotfi et al. (US 2020/0232624), D’Alessio et al. (US 2016/0349481), Muntz et al. (US 2007/0247541) all disclose relevant optical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872